Originally posted by quackquackThe pope's comment seems as reasonable as pointing to the a clergy child molester or a fundimentalist terrorrist and saying that is a good example of what religion will do to you.

You are correct that neither is inherently less reasonable than the other.

Originally posted by sh76You are correct that neither is inherently less reasonable than the other.

The question, however, is which one of them is true.

Neither is true because neither is really the basis of their actions. I think most people can agree that whether or not you believe in religion or basic civil rights you are wrong when you commit attrocities.

Originally posted by quackquackNeither is true because neither is really the basis of their actions. I think most people can agree that whether or not you believe in religion or basic civil rights you are wrong when you commit attrocities.

That doesn't mean there's no causal relationship between the two quantities.

I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that statistically, Muslims are more likely to engage in suicide bombing than non-Muslims and Catholic Priests are more likely to engage in pedophilia than non-Catholic Priests.

Can it be said that Athiests are more likely to engage in evil behavior than non-Athiests? Gee, I dunno.

Originally posted by sh76That doesn't mean there's no causal relationship between the two quantities.

I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that statistically, Muslims are more likely to engage in suicide bombing than non-Muslims and Catholic Priests are more likely to engage in pedophilia than non-Catholic Priests.

Can it be said that Athiests are more likely to engage in evil behavior than non-Athiests? Gee, I dunno.

Catholic Priests are more likely to engage in pedophilia than non-Catholic Priests.

That's actually not true. When compared to other denominations the percentage of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes is the same.

Originally posted by sh76That doesn't mean there's no causal relationship between the two quantities.

I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that statistically, Muslims are more likely to engage in suicide bombing than non-Muslims and Catholic Priests are more likely to engage in pedophilia than non-Catholic Priests.

Can it be said that Athiests are more likely to engage in evil behavior than non-Athiests? Gee, I dunno.

It is an interesting issue. Is it the fault of the Islamic religion that people are more likely to use it as a pretext for suicide bombing or the fault of Catholic priests that they are more likely toengage in pedophalia?

Originally posted by sh76That doesn't mean there's no causal relationship between the two quantities.

I'm sure we can all agree, for example, that statistically, Muslims are more likely to engage in suicide bombing than non-Muslims and Catholic Priests are more likely to engage in pedophilia than non-Catholic Priests.

Can it be said that Athiests are more likely to engage in evil behavior than non-Athiests? Gee, I dunno.

thats as useless statement as saying blacks are more likely to eat chikin and watermelon.

what other awesome steretypes do you have? bonus points if we haven't heard them before

Originally posted by Zahlanzithats as useless statement as saying blacks are more likely to eat chikin and watermelon.

what other awesome steretypes do you have? bonus points if we haven't heard them before

It is not a stereotype if it is statistically true. It is not useless either if their is a causal relationship and we can explore its effects. Furthermore, if you want to blast anyone you should blast the pope for making what appears to be the most ridiculous steretype in the conversation.

Originally posted by Zahlanzithats as useless statement as saying blacks are more likely to eat chikin and watermelon.

what other awesome steretypes do you have? bonus points if we haven't heard them before

Yes, yes. Political correctness to the rescue. You know perfectly well both are true."Useless"? In what respect? For behavioral purposes? Perhaps. For the purpose of this particular academic debate in determining the merits of quackquack's comparison to what the Pope said, it's quite useful.

Originally posted by quackquackIt is an interesting issue. Is it the fault of the Islamic religion that people are more likely to use it as a pretext for suicide bombing or the fault of Catholic priests that they are more likely toengage in pedophalia?

I would say at least partially yes in both cases.

Whether the suicide bombers are being influenced by legitimate Muslims or people who have perverted the religion, the fact is that people are encouraged, in the name of Islam, to blow themselves up along with hordes of other people. It may not be the "fault" of legitimate Islam, But it's at least partially the fault of what is being passed for Islam by some.

As for Catholic Priests, when you put grown men who have voluntarily chosen forced celibacy in a position of power and influence over hordes of young boys, yes, you put yourself in a position that child molestation will occur more frequently than otherwise.